1. The Solution Defined:-

Before looking at the potential Solutions if we agree that there are indeed problems:

"The Common Fisheries Policy is a biological, environmental, economic and social disaster; it is beyond reform. It is a system that forces fishermen to throw back more fish dead into the sea than they land, it has caused substantial degradation of the marine environment, it has destroyed much of the fishing industry, with compulsory scrapping of modern vessels and has devastated fishing communities."

"Fisheries cannot be managed successfully on a continental scale; they need local control." ~ Consultation on a National Policy on Fisheries Management in UK Waters ~ Owen Paterson January, 2005

Then we must establish the exact nature of those Problems, to which John AshworthThe Common Fisheries Policy – Part 1 provides the exact description of the rules of the EU, how it works:-

"When a Regulation is created, at the top
it states the articles within the Treaty the regulation takes its
authority from, and as soon as a Regulation comes into force, it in turn
becomes what is known as the acquis communautaire:-

"The Court of Justice has ruled that the EU acquis takes precedence over
national law if there is a conflict, and that the acquis may have direct
effect in the Member States."

In understanding the workings of the
then EEC, now European Union, the above paragraph is probably one of the
most important aspects to have to learn.

Firstly – what is this acquis communautaire.
-. It is all EEC/EU treaties, EU legislation -(regulation),
international agreements, standards, court verdicts, fundamental rights
provisions and horizontal principles in the treaties such as equality
and non-discrimination. In short, all EU-law.

When Britain joined in January 1973, the acquis communautaire
amounted to around 5,000 pages; today it is estimated to be 170,000
pages and growing. When a nation joins, what is now the EU, it has to
accept, and comply, with the acquis communautaire in full,
without exception, other than with transitional derogations. In addition
the existing members have to all agree, to the applying Nation joining
under those terms, which in effect the existing members, by Treaty, are
endorsing their allegiance/compliance to the acquis communautaire."

The UK joined the EEC in 1972 and has been a member of the EU for 44 years and a part of the acquis system above. Dr. RAE North in FLEXCIT: The Market Solution - 9.0 Regulatory issues provides a summary of the full weight of membership to this system for the UK:-

"In this event, the UK will be obliged to keep all Single Market regulation in place. This is an extensive body of law. From May 1992, when the EEA Agreement encompassed 1,849 legal acts, by December 2013 it had grown o 5,758 legislative acts, out of the 20,868 EU acts currently in orce (Table 3). By the end of October 2015, there were 4,957 acts remaining in force, with EU laws in force recorded at 23,076. As a percentage of that number, the EEA acquis stood at 22 percent."

2. The Two-Step Solution Applied (I):-

"Since there would be no obligation to retain the remainder of the acquis, theoretically, leaving the EU could give relief from around 15,000 acts (although by no means all are applicable to the UK). Amongst others, high profile policies such as the CFP and the CAP, would be amendable to abolition if there was the political will to do so, and the nation was prepared to accept the consequences."

If we look at our FLEXCIT model we remind ourselves what is the "problem" we are trying to actually solve. Is it economics? No It's political. We saw in FLEXCIT Application: 1. Fisheries Problems of Supranational membership. This is why "keeping all the Single Market regulations" in place is undertaken on withdrawing from Political Union.

The solution is as per Dr. RAE North in FLEXCIT:-

"To allow time to revise our law books, a holding process will be needed. The best option is to repatriate the entire body of EU law, converting it en bloc into British law (by a device similar to the ECA)"

"As far as the UK is concerned, the
fundamental principle on which a policy should rest is that the fish and
other sea creatures within the UK’s fishing zone of 200 mile/median
line are the property of the nation as a whole. Custody of that resource
lies with the central and devolved governments."

"The first priority, therefore, is that control/competence is returned back to Britain."

Here we have the solution, repatriation of the acquis does mean full "control/competence is returned back to Britain."

3. The Two-Step Solution Applied (II):-

"Since its inception, it has been dominated by political considerations that have had little to do with good fisheries management, so the decline and impending collapse of British fisheries has to be laid squarely at the door of the CFP."

"There is now increasing evidence that the reason for the failure is that the core regime applied by the CFP is irredeemably flawed, not least in terms of its appreciation of fish biology, the quality and interpretation of data, as well as the treatment of fishermen"

To come back to John Ashworth:-

"However, as far as fisheries are concerned, it is no good scrapping one
régime in order to establish another equally bad system. Withdrawal
presents us with a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity, to show what can be
achieved in an area that contains one of the finest marine resources in
the world."

"But the distinction has been made, once we regain Sovereignty of a national resource, the full British Fisheries Industry scope is set according to International Law that allows Sovereignty to be clearly defined and not obfuscated under Supranationalism (which we see persistent examples of):-An inshore industry could be built around the 0 -12 mile limit, which
would have a beneficial effect on coastal communities through tourism,
recreational fishing, employment and other ancillary industries. All
could be administered locally."

"The offshore Industry would be based on
the 12 to 200 mile/median line, and then you have the straddling stocks
and reciprocal arrangements, which brings genuine friendship between
fishermen of different nations. When other nation’s vessels fish in our
waters they would do so under our rules."

What we see is that there is no "leap in the dark" there is a orderly two-step withdrawal that regains Sovereignty and removes Supranationalism. Remember that the Solution is not the Outcome, it's a bridge FROM Supranationalism TO Intergovernmentalism:-

This simple distinction is not made by so much of the political commentary on this subject not just say on Fisheries but on Immigration or any other "Policy Outcome Aspirations". The process of transition itself.

What this solutions does not provide (Outcome) it does provide in terms of relief as per Owen Paterson above, relief from Bad Politics interfering with good fisheries management. It also will help provide a stronger scientific and technical basis for Fisheries Conservation, Sustainability and Recovery and hence a thriving industry administered locally by people who have a vested interest in it's welfare and their own. For example John Ashworth again summarizes:-

Two essential features are needed for a viable fisheries policy:-

The
first is the ability to be able rapidly to close areas down where
juvenile fish are abundant. This has to be done within hours, even if
the closure period may only last for a day or two. This ability to react
quickly will never happen while our waters are under the control of
Brussels control.

The other important feature of any contemporary
fisheries management is the use of selective gear, As a fishing gear
designer I need to emphasise that the gear you design for one area is
not the same for another area. Even if you are catching the same
species, you need to make slight alterations to the gear. This level of
adaption is impossible under the policy imposed by Brussels where one
set of rules must fit the whole of a large area.

"You must have fishermen on side to make this work, but again, under the
North/Paterson proposals, this is far more likely than under the current
EU- controlled regime. The attitude it has engendered is that if I
don’t catch it, some other foreigner, even though it is another EU
citizen, will get it, so I will get in first."

"Personally, I am strongly in favour of the model used by the Faeroe
Islanders which operates in a diametrically opposite way to the EU
system of setting for each species a total allowable catch on an annual
basis, often based on dubious research. In my view it is no good working
from the top of the pyramid downwards. Research should be directed at
the base of the pyramid upwards; starting with the food source. Once you
know the availability here, you can calculate what can be sustained at
the top. If for example you have a collapse of the base, you have to
fish the top hard, the very opposite to what would happen now."

And on the problems in-built into the "DNA" of the Political "Ever Closer Union" Supranational EU:

"Ranged against us are those who don’t want the Nation State, and those
reformists who either don’t understand the workings of the EU, or else
who have a hidden agenda. If they really believed in reform, they would
want to get rid of the principle of equal access to a common resource
without discrimination. However, such reform is impossible because of
the thinking behind the EU Common fisheries policy, which is incapable
of beneficial reform along the lines suggested here as it violates the
very principles of integration enshrined in the EU treaties which it was
designed to promote. Unfortunately, so-called reformists never
acknowledge this harsh reality."

Abstraction of Solutions:-

Member states must take up the full acquis communautaire under the terms of the EU Treaties.

With respect to Fisheries this takes precedence over our own law as per the ECJ and with respect to the derogation of Fisheries we lose Sovereign Control of our Waters under "1982 Law of the Sea Convention".

As we are removing Supranationalism, we retain Single Market acquis to trade with the EU via EFTA/EEA in the ideal settlement. This leaves possible scope for revision of the CFP acquis which is not part of the EEA agreement; ie Policy Control is returned. It also means the return of our Sovereign Waters.

In the process of withdrawal we would repatriate the entire acquis simply to make the withdrawal and renegotiation expedient and avoid disruption to all economic activities.

This would in the longer term however provide potential relief from EU legislation not part of the EEA acquis and secondly reform of various sections of the acquis itself such as the CFP.

This itself is full Policy Control returned to Britain as well as relief from the maladaptive political interference of the EU under it's principles of "greater integration".

It would also provide relief from the false arguments of EU Reform which by the nature of the rules are restricted in scope.

This sets the greater scope for scientific and technical considerations in the management of Fisheries over "capricious Supranational politics".

Clarification of Fisheries under International Law is a positive boon for our politics and how that influences the Fisheries success of management proposals.

We can remove wasteful years of excessive "political maneuvering" by our politicians and EU officials to be replaced by practical and positive policy implementation that is measurable and accountable and comparative to good practices and the spread of high quality expertise and application over "political horse-trading".

Fisheries: 1. Problem

1.1 Original Problems:-

The
challenge here is to summarize a history stretching from 1970 and even
beyond the present past 2020. However that's plenty of time with which
to build a very strong evidence basis concerning a problem with
Fisheries Policy, to quote FLEXCIT: 14.0 Fisheries:-

"While
there are aspects of the CAP which may be tolerable, at least in the
short to medium-term, there are no redeeming aspects of the EU's Common
Fisheries Policy (CFP)."

To quote and paraphrase John Ashworth's
Fisheries work above: At the end of June 1970, just before the UK was
in the process of joining the EEC, the original six members "created the Fisheries regulation 2140/70".

"In
laymen’s language, that is, on becoming a member of the then EEC, now
EU, the fishery limits bestowed on a Nation by International Law, are
handed to the EU, to become Community waters, shared equally and without
discrimination, with every other Member Nation."

"As Britain had
the largest living marine resource within the EU. We had, by our
Accession Treaty obligation share it with every other member – end
result – our vessels had to go."

"The British people were not told these facts, in fact the very opposite."

What
is significant is the timing of this new regulation which became
adopted into the acquis communautaire before the UK Prime Minister Heath
had completed his formal application for membership to the EEC. And
therefore the PM lied about the Fisheries in order to successfully gain
membership by adopting the entire acquis as part of the requirement of
the EU Treaties rules themselves.

1.2 Continuity of Problems:-

On "EU Reform" applied to Fisheries:-

"This
so-called reform is not the CFP, but a political management tool that
is a derogation from the CFP, and this “reform” that our British
politicians claim to be a wonderful achievement to obtain, is actually
part of the political process to full integration – community waters –
community fleet – based on non-discrimination, as stated in the
Treaties."

Further problems are highlighted
by the fact that Norway did not join nor did Iceland and then Greenland
left - Because of Fisheries to a large degree. Coupled to this:-

"Spain,
whose application was filed in 1977, would join. Indeed, along with
Portugal it did join in 1986, bringing a massive fishing capacity with
little resource, tipping the capacity to resource ratio the wrong
way.Things were further complicated by Greenland leaving the then EEC in
1985, another loss of resource and again, because of fishing."

"Britain
tried to secure a 50 mile exclusive fishing zone, and later attempted
to seek a higher percentage share of the quota, but the other Member
States said, “no, go and read the Treaties” – something the British are
not good at."

"The Accession of Spain and Portugal sailed through our Parliament during 1985, without hardly any questions being asked."

"Genuine
reform can only be implemented by unanimous agreement. Meanwhile, the
integration process rolls onwards and the obliteration of the British
fishing fleet continues, in a most devious manner."

The deviousness all came from the British side"

What
happened with the "skewed fishing capacity to resource ratio" was that
the British politicians had to find a way to decimate the British
fishing vessels to make space for the Spanish:-

"These
same people had a problem:- knowing full well that the execution of
British fishermen had to take place, but having to do it without the
British people knowing.

In the second half
of the 1980s, and into the 1990s two situations were happening: large
amounts of juvenile fish were being dumped dead back into the sea, and
the sand eel stocks, which play a crucial role in the food chain, were
being hammered.

The industry highlighted these problems, and
through some brilliant research by the Marine Laboratory in Aberdeen,
groundbreaking information was provided on how, by changes ot the gear
design, the small fish would not be caught.

Our own Ministry
firstly denied either of the events were taking place then secondly went
into silent mode, appearing to want to take no action. At that time we
did not appreciate why.

One area where the EU excels is if they
have a problem, sometimes a crisis ensues which they can use to solve
the problem and at the same time further the integration process. This
is called a beneficial crisis."

1.3 Present Problems:-

"Even
now the present Westminster Fisheries Minister George Eustice MP states
he is a “strong eurosceptic”, who is pleased with his Ministry’s so
called “CFP reform”.

"As
far as the UK is concerned, the fundamental principle on which a policy
should rest is that the fish and other sea creatures within the UK’s
fishing zone of 200 mile/median line are the property of the nation as a
whole. Custody of that resource lies with the central and devolved
governments."

Equal access: All
waters of the member states, up to the shore (base) line is shared
equally with every other member state. Apart from during the early
1970s, you never heard the equal access principle mentioned, even though
it was created at the very start of the Common Fisheries project – as
far back as 1970.

To a common resource: All living marine life is a common resource.

Without discrimination: One of the main principles of the EU membership which our Prime Minister does not want to understand.

Without increasing fishing effort:
So if a new member has large capacity and little resource, that
capacity has to be absorbed with no increase in catching more which
means someone has to go.

"Meanwhile
the only “British waters” are so limited that the fishing of those
waters thas now been relegated to a cottage industry which only exists
thanks to a derogation within the 6 and partial 6 to 12 mile limits,
which the other EU member states are under no obligation to renew."

The figures themselves told the story. In 1972, a total of
939,800 tons was landed by British vessels, compared with
145,850 tons landed by foreign vessels. Vessel numbers were then not
accurately recorded (and nor indeed was the entire UK catch). But
in 1995, we know that 9,200 fishing vessels landed 912,000 tonnes
of fish– not a great difference, but then the CFP was only just
beginning to bite."

"In 2002, however, after Commission
effects to reduce the fishing effort, there were only 7,578
vessels, which landed 686,000 tonnes – a 25 percent reduction in
catches over eight years."

"By 2012, the UK fleet had
dropped to 6,406 vessels, comprising 5,032 ten-metre and under vessels
and 1,374 over ten-metre vessels. Landings dropped to 627,000 tonnes,
with a value of £770 million. But the real contrast came with the
imports. In the same year, these reached 638,410 tonnes, valued at
£2.6bn. Of that, £797 million came from the EU-27, a
significant proportion of which were caught in UK waters."

"This
provided a graphic illustration of the way the CFP worked.
Access to fishing grounds had been dominated by political
considerations, on the basis of "equal access" to what was defined
as a "common resource"."

Abstraction of Problems:-

Power Grab by EEC on political bartering of EEC Membership

Great Deception and abuse of power by our Prime Minister on advising membership at the same time as lying about Fisheries.

Derogation under Supranationalism instead of International Law is a clear reduction in British Sovereignty

So-called
Pooling of Sovereignty has led to the wilful destruction of our
Fisheries Industry and a Conservation disaster used as a political tool.

British
Political Establishment (politicians and civil service) acting in great
betrayal against the British People directly ie aberration of our
political systems.

Example of "Beneficial Crisis" manipulation
by the Supranational EU for greater integration of "ever closer union"
eg Community Waters.

Imitative deceptive behaviour by successive
British politicians sustain the original problems eg current Fisheries
minister and David Cameron on "EU Reform" as a phrase to avert the
problem identification and historic factual record.

Continual
misrepresentation of the nature of the Supranational EU Political
Project which has repercussions to the upcoming EU Referendum.

In the previous blog, FLEXCIT: Back From The Future I think I managed successfully to finally encapsulate FLEXCIT in a visible and accessible form for people who have zero knowledge of the subject of the EU Referendum and Brexit. FLEXCIT: The Market Solution can be thought of as the "DNA": It is a compacted store of extraordinarily organized and complex information. Most people will not read this "genetic code". Hence for this "DNA" to be useful, it requires people to transcribe it into different "USE-ABLE FORMS". In this case we're going to do just that starting with The Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) as example of applying our method to harvest data/evidence to feed into the question of Supranationalism or Intergovernmentalism. The references above provide all the data. What people need is not mountains of data, they need organization of it:-

Evidence of a Problem: UK Fisheries under Supranationalism = Common Fisheries Policy (CFP).

To provide an example the form mentioned above would be suitable for a 10-20 page pamphlet as a visual guide to the referendum and how people can structure their choice to vote to Remain or to vote to Leave. The challenge of the EU is to show to people that our Policy Control is best served when it is by self-governance of the people by the people as well as the positive alternative vision that replaces Supranationalism with Intergovernmentalism. So using our method on this data/evidence set of Fisheries let's begin:-

Inheritance: Method to Organize the Evidence for Fisheries - "Use-ably"

The reason we use this structured method is that it feeds into the upper levels which are most relevant to our Referendum Question itself and in a form that is easy for people to appreciate when they (millions) make their choice.

Each of the above:

Problem

Solution

Outcome

Will be summarized from the primary research and references, then at the end abstraction of the "common messages". In turn these common messages will themselves become the form for a new form for people to use to easily understand the EU Referendum question inheriting the positive qualities that originate in the works above (the DNA) and ensuring a direct link to a common source of origin and expertise.

"By way of
background, we are engaged in the political battle of the century, and
to win it we need to do three things. Firstly, we need to convince
enough voters that we need to leave the EU. Secondly, we need to offer
them an alternative vision – one which is better than anything the EU
has to offer. Thirdly, we have to be able to reassure people that moving
from the EU to our alternative is practicable and safe. That is our
so-called exit plan.

These three things I have previously described as the "three-legged
stool". In my view, they are not optional. Together, they comprise the
essential elements of the campaign. Without them, I am convinced that we
cannot win this referendum.

What we don't need, therefore, is people of status and some prestige
coming out of the woodwork, promoting ridiculous and totally unworkable
ideas for an exit plan, and then undermining the work of those people
(such as myself and all the other contributors to Flexcit) who have come up with a workable plan."

Effectively FLEXCIT/The Market Solution is the full context within which the solution (Brexit) is held between Problem and Outcome; and only one (but central) element of the full picture:

Incorrect/Zero Framing of the Problem:

Brexit: A small but pivotal part of the full story: NOT the full story!

What we see when the context/framing is not applied correctly is a list of declarative battles over what is the problem and what is the solution? Nobody apparently knows and both "sides of the argument" are apparently equivalent: They're not - they descend into low quality arguments as per Argument Abstraction:-

The Political Dark Ages Today: Exemplified by these "prestigious groups" AND The Economist

In Outcomes: The 20:80 Rule it was pointed out that most of the EU Referendum discussion and Brexit by implication is wasteful communication,"mountains of madness" in the legacy news-media and "piles of garbage" produced by Westminster politicians. The assertion was made that the Positive Vision as per Dr. RAE North,above, is predominantly the future creation of a genuine single market in which Britain plays a leading role amongst equals, due to initiating this change, not by default of dominating.

However there is another positive outcome preceding this one: "Which is which when all is said and done?" And that is the very process of holding a referendum is an opportunity to increase the quality of arguments and increase the positive engagement of people into the political decision making process itself.

If you've noticed our politicians for decades and in great volume have talked about "uncertainty" in our politics: They're the biggest source of this so-called "political disease" as per The Root Of All Uncertainty, both the above two sides represented/hand-picked in The Economist above are full of The Brexit Bullshit Sandwich.

In fact what we're already doing is starting to describe the problem of our EU Membership indirectly. But there is much much more to do to build up the argument to it's full completion:-

This is now the 81st blog post, so it seems appropriate to try to change the nature of Brexit Discussion to the essential "Positive Vision" component. Looking at the above graph, this is an illustration of a Power Law, in the above case the form of the 20:80 Rule aka The Pareto Principle that people are more familiar with:-

"The Pareto principle (also known as the 80–20 rule, the law of the vital few, and the principle of factor sparsity) states that, for many events, roughly 80% of the effects come from 20% of the causes.[2]Management consultantJoseph M. Juran suggested the principle and named it after Italian economistVilfredo Pareto, who, while at the University of Lausanne
in 1896, published his first paper "Cours d'économie politique."
Essentially, Pareto showed that approximately 80% of the land in Italy
was owned by 20% of the population; Pareto developed the principle by
observing that 20% of the peapods in his garden contained 80% of the peas."

Namely and only in this case to illustrate as opposed to measure accurately: What we talk about when we talk about Brexit and our Referendum on the EU is prodigiously, prodigiously distorted. It's a reflection on the extremely low quality communication that is passed off as national decision-making in the UK/Britain today by our "leaders".

The even worse news is that the above 20:80 Rule is merely more memorable for illustration given Brexit discussions. I have not measured and categorized all the Brexit discussions the volume in the legacy news-media and I suspect in our politics conducted in Westminster but the above Power Law type is "too generous" the reality I guess is much closer to 5:95 or even 1:99...

That said, we can use the 20:80 Rule to illustrate a fundamental problem with the EU:-

The QMV voting percentages in the EU Parliament for example follow broadly population. But the effect of comparing GDP of EU Members shows a similarity to the Power Law above. Namely the economic power of a few large members suggests an uneven distribution of economic importance.

Here's the suggested problem: The UK as a member of the Supranational EU gains advantage ONLY from Single Market membership. It actually receives disadvantage from Political Union membership; where different political priorities interfere with the progression of the Single Market and with the growth in World Trade.

Therefore I would say a lot of the Brexit discussions FAIL to properly address: What is our desired outcome when/if we leave the EU? The answer is the reformation of the Single Market to globalization without the complications of Political Union (eg EURO). The problem is Supranationalism prohibits this process for the UK: Instead we have the deceptions of our politicians who are incompetent and liars and do not appear to have any motivation to resolve the problem, in fact they "prolong it".

EU Political Union of "Concentric Circles"

EU-Centric Europe: Illustrative gradations of Core = Centralization of Power to Outer-Periphery removal of political power

"Even within ther EU, there are different levels of commitment, with the inner core defined as the eighteen eurozone members iniwhat is often described as a Europe of concentric circles. The non-eurozone Schengen and then non-Schengen members are described as the outer core zone, while accesssion countries and EEA members are part of the "periphery". Neighbours are known as the "outer periphery".

"This image of concentric circles conveys the reality of an EU-centric Europe, where those furthest from the centre have least power."

What we can clearly summarize:-

Communication of the EU Political Project is horribly skewed in UK Politics.

Members are unequal economically within it.

Members are unequal politically within it.

Members are in all likihood moving in different directions due to the preceding variability.

And yet we have EU Treaties that tie all these nations together. The next step is:-

The Monetary/Fiscal Union of the EUROZONE

Aligning with the globalization process to boost prosperity

Effectively the UK in it's own decisions should be considering that the former is not a realistic nor desirable outcome. So the question remains why have we not had more discussion on the creation of a genuine single market and focus on what this really means?

"For instance, when a group of European think-tanks in 2013 published a proposed draft treaty to take the EUropean Union on from the Lisbon Treaty, which they called "A Fundamental Law of the European Union", they defined the new status of "Association Member", whereby states could take part in specific policies of the EU - such as the single Market - without committing to the full acquis. This would accord a position of less power and influence to those states which adopted this status."

The biggest (political) "splash" is in the center!

Looking at the existing alternative:-

"A new EFTA-EU relationship, therefore, would still put it's members in a subordinate position, in the outer circle with Brussels still in the central, dominant position, perpetuating the idea of a Europe of concentric circles.Despite this very obvious handicap, the "No to EU" coalition in Norway would welcome this development. There is considerable antipathy towards the Agreement and an aspiration to replace it with a free trade agreement. Here, British membership of EFTA is seen as increasing the negotiating power of the bloc. That position may be strengthened by other member states which may wish to leave the EU."

There's no protestant or catholic when it comes down to trade.

With possibly Denmark as well this would the ~20:80 forging the Single Market while the rest forge on with Political Union.

Friday, 12 February 2016

In quantum mechanics, the uncertainty principle, also known as Heisenberg's uncertainty principle,
is any of a variety of mathematical inequalities asserting a
fundamental limit to the precision with which certain pairs of physical
properties of a particle, known as complementary variables, such as position x and momentum p, can be known simultaneously.

So "uncertainty" is in-built it seems into the very nature of the realistic universe! Or to adapt it for a more "relate-able" misuse:-

And this is indeed a hilarious transposition of "uncertainty" when we also find the same "joke"as noted by Mr. Brexit:-

This is attributed to "uncertainty". So how do we reduce/remove uncertainty?

What does "uncertainty" look like = Bad Decision-Making ; What is at the root of uncertainty = Not asking the right questions aka 1. DEFINE THE PROBLEM

Once we use such a framework it should be noted, CEP above launches into Stage 3. [See Above: "What are the UK's options outside the European Union?"] suggesting there is uncertainty over 3 million jobs and The Single Market and the EU are all blurred into one amorphous and undefined entity to which all manner of uncertainty properties can be attributed.

But the dual fallacies are both launching into Stage 4. AND not starting at Stage 1.

The enormous disregard for The History of the European Union as described and defined in The Great Deception has been a key contributor to failure of progression of the argument.

If anyone is interested in Brexit, they must know what the defined problem is as per Lost Leonardo: For The Avoidance of Doubt. But this also allows an insight into the workings of the "eurosceptic aristocracy" who are taking over the Leave Campaign forming their own "Policy Ponzi" scheme as per Leave HQ: What's Wrong With the WTO Option?. Why? Why do they do this? What we see by the process of obscuring the definition of the problem ie ignoring The Great Deception is that it means the "Consideration Set" is kept broad and undefined. Here is the space with which the politicians can peddle their "Policy Ponzis" as per The Brexit Bullshit Sandwich to a bewildered public. By going through the entire cycle of Decision-Making we can connect the original problem itself to a form that is "fitted" to democratic decision-making on a mass scale for voters to be an executive part of the full decision-making cycle. But it relies on HIGH QUALITY!

It's funny you don't need the likes of LSE or CER who are paid so much by such powerful entities with such jealously guarded vested interests, a simple tabulation tells the story as effectively and more clearly. And as pointed out they deliberately go about:-

We can see that CER and Open Europe are determined to also ask the wrong questions and get the right questions on economic projections. This is why FLEXCIT removes this area from the original question and from the practical implementation of Brexit too. No other Brexit plan do we see this simple high quality thinking.

And this itself can be used to reinforce our Problem Definition:-

Just look at all these useless reports that fail to Define The Problem and Ask The Right Questions.

Our Membership of the Supranational EU is itself a deterioration of democratic decision-making processes as a nation!!

Why don't the above avowed "Leave Campaigners" seek to solve this problem via higher quality decision-making and hence avoid uncertainty? It's their trade as "eurosceptic aristocrats" in SW1 as part of the political class: Farage on that front is certainly right!

It's up to voters to force such people either out of the way as part of the problem preventing problem definition or make them part of the solution:-

Importance of sovereignty

"Many voters had sovereignty at the top of their list for their reasons to say ‘no’, both in 1972 and 1994.

Norway gained independence from 90 years of Swedish rule in 1905, and was prior to that a part of the Danish Kingdom for more than four centuries. Skinner writes that this history of foreign rule has made Norwegians reluctant to give up independence to a supranational union such as the EU.

“For many Norwegians, the distance to Oslo is long,” says the researcher. “But the distance to Brussels is even longer.”

She says Norwegians are content with their political system, characterised by a short socioeconomic distance between the government and the governed, and are put off by the decision-making process in the EU.Marianne Sundlisæter Skinner.

This attitude was found both in the seventies and nineties."

I guess the Norwegians had their heads screwed on tightly both:-

Defining the Problem.

Defining the Challenge: Not trusting or being led by THEIR lying politicians who did want to join!

However one important difference to sharp-eyed observers, this was about Sovereignty to them in the 70's and 90's.

Today, in the 10's the problem is still Supranationalism but the challenge is Intergovernmentalism. The problem with Supranationalism?

"In my piece on barking cats to which I constantly refer, I call in aid a commentary written by Milton Friedman
on the behaviour of government bodies. The way an agency behaves,
Friedman argues, is not an accident, not a result of some easily
corrected human mistake, but a consequence of its constitution in
precisely the same way that a meow is related to the constitution of a
cat."

"Suckers": Sooner or later original lies are going to need more lies to sustain them which in turn require yet more and more lies to service subsequent lies... Numbers don't lie if you look after them very carefully

I personally cannot tell or know if this is some master-stroke strategy to gain the attention of swing-voters into believing that it's time for the UK to "get a better deal!" from the EU: Afterall we're supposedly partners in "political union": What kind of partnership is this?

I don't know. But what I do know is that the our politics is predominantly Top-Down and THIS dictates the type of communication from those in power to those under power ie the people:-

Most of our politics is conveyed by the BBC FROM our politicians. Very little of the voters is shared in this medium of communication. Alternatively via google people can find alternative sources of information from other people to share and communicate on a vastly larger scale and scope.

Interestingly, google is taking a lot of "flak" for it's taxes at the moment. But I've found google immensely useful; I use it most days multiple times and in particular for helping to find useful information on "EU Referendum" and "Brexit". The problem as I see it is that the the major Legacy News-Media delivery of information is very Top-Down so we end up with the likes of David Campbell-Bannerman regressing progression of ideas of Brexit once again back to the "Better Deal Fallacy" territory again: EU Referendum: in spite of these people …

Unfortunatately google works both ways, there's a lot of information about "Control Our Borders" that also does not hold up no matter how passionately it is believed; particularly by UKIP supporters. It's another "Policy Ponzi" it probably needs to be conceded: Driven by how many people it can "sucker" in.

"Putting the arguments in the chapter together, two separate themes emerge. Firstly, there is the issue of intra-EU "freedom of movement", mandated by EU treaties and then either a condition of the Market Solution, whetehr through the EFTA/EEA route ("Norway Option"), via the unilateral "shadow EEA" approach or Australian process.We retain the view that the interim stratagem facilitates our expeditious withdrawal from the EU. The Market Solution with the short-term continuation of freedom of movement provisions, is an acceptable price to pay, especially if the alternative is continued membership of the EU, which would also require the implementation of freedom of movement provisions.This notwithstanding, we have also argued that leaving the EU, per se, will not solve our immigration problems.[...]It has failed in this context to realise that "controlling our borders" is not a policy per se, but an aspiration - and a wholly unrealistic one at that."

In effect a "Policy Ponzi". Let's make this clear as per The Market Solution:-

Brexit will allow greater Policy Control over Migration (not the same thing as "Control Our Borders" outcome) - but not over Freedom of Movement, immediately. Secondly it will not resolve Pull-Push Factors by itself which are systemic and regional-global, not only national (ie control our borders). But it will help and above all make our politicians MORE DIRECTLY accountable to this policy.

What we can see is that this is a very variable number of interacting issues:-

Any effective policy, though must be properly coordinated with other policy areas, as in "joined up policy".

What we're currently doing is failing the progression of the argument, mainly due to the 650 MP's and the Legacy News-Media combination in poor communication and exclusive omission of ideas from the 32,000,000 people who own "British Sovereignty". The result is The Brexit Bullshit Sandwich that is used to persuade and sell to people a lot of different "Policy Ponzis".

The result of this:-

Failure of progression via failure to implement a fair system of selection = Status Quo Result

The confusion in the argument perpetrated by the likes of David Campbell-Bannerman and The cancer in the Tory establishment means our arguments are prevented from progressing in quality. On the otherside of the BS sandwich we get UKIP putting x1 Policy Migration in front of Withdrawal because they've built up a following of "suckers for lies" aka a "Policy Ponzi Scheme"... let's see where that leads to in the future for all the followers who have invested their goodwill and emotional attachment to these promises shall we?

Or we can all start using google and talking with each other and generating more honest and accurate ideas to discuss their merits in our national decision making as per Real (direct) Democracy: Hiding in Plain Sight, for a start:-

"The pigs had an even harder struggle to counteract the lies put about by
Moses, the tame raven. Moses, who was Mr. Jones's especial pet, was a
spy and a tale-bearer, but he was also a clever talker. He claimed to
know of the existence of a mysterious country called Sugarcandy
Mountain, to which all animals went when they died. It was situated
somewhere up in the sky, a little distance beyond the clouds, Moses
said. In Sugarcandy Mountain it was Sunday seven days a week, clover was
in season all the year round, and lump sugar and linseed cake grew on
the hedges. The animals hated Moses because he told tales and did no
work, but some of them believed in Sugarcandy Mountain, and the pigs had
to argue very hard to persuade them that there was no such place."

"Anything
as complex and challenging as leaving the European Union will present
significant problems. Therefore, you do not need a focus group to tell
you that, when confronting the prospect of an EU referendum, voters will
need to be reassured that a choice to leave is not a leap in the dark.

That much has been obvious to anyone who has even begun to look at the
issue. More specifically, I have long argued that we would need to
produce a credible exit plan. Without that – as I was writing in May 2008, over seven years ago – our opposition would rely on the status quo
to support their case and, in particular, the assertion that there is
no alternative (TINA) to our membership of the European Union.

It actually took five years, until June 2013, for the IEA to trigger the process of producing an exit plan, with its Brexit Prize.
But so badly managed was the competition – and then ultimately rigged –
that the winning entries added nothing to the debate and have
disappeared into the obscurity they rightly deserve."

Sugarcandy Mountain!

There is no such thing as "Sugarcandy Mountain" but there is such as thing as people who make a good living for themselves selling it:-

"In Mr
Hannan's world, however, time has stood still. The idea of a staged exit
is rigorously excluded while he rehearses the same issues he was
writing about ten years ago,
in terms that have scarcely changed. Laboriously, he goes on a hunt for
the ideal "model", with a tedious and somewhat flawed review of the
Norway-EEA and Swiss arrangements.

This leads him then to conclude that Norway "gets a better deal than
Britain currently does", and – quite wrongly – that Switzerland gets "a
better deal than Norway". And upon this flawed assumption, he then drops
into an exposition of the better deal fallacy
as he assert that "a post-EU Britain, with 65 million people to
Switzerland's eight million and Norway's five, should expect something
better yet"."

"One of the converts to this idea is Ruth Lea. She was formerly an advocate of the so-called "Swiss option"
(page 27), so she now stands – without explanation - completely at odds
with her earlier position. But we have also seen an intervention from Global Britain."

There is a telling difference between us lesser mortals and men such as John Redwood. We believe that we need the 419 pages of Flexcit,
and something like three years of study, to define how we leave the EU.
Redwood believes he can do it in a mere 417 words, contradicting the
bulk of what we have to say in the process.

Both
writers take exception to Mr Redwood's many assertions, including the
most egregious of them which have him declaring that "the Leave campaign
does not want the UK to seek a Norway style deal", that in order to
leave "the UK could simply amend the 1972 European Communities Act" and
that, after leaving, we could "simply rely on World Trade Organisation
membership to stop tariffs and other barriers being imposed"."

"Amazingly,
the Eurosceptic "aristocracy" simply can't get their soggy little
brains round the idea that it would be extremely unwise to attempt a
"big bang" separation from the EU. They also have difficulty with the
idea that the two year period allowed for the initial Article 50 exit
negotiations isn't long enough to broker a bespoke free trade agreement –
which can take 5-15 years to conclude."

"Sugarcandy Mountain, that happy country where we poor animals shall rest
for ever from our labours!"

"My answer on what the alternative plan should be called is "WTO Plus".
All other benefits - democratic control, border control, economic
control - flow from it. It is a simple and genuine alternative plan. So,
you may ask, what on earth is it?

My plan for the UK outside of the EU combines a guaranteed basic
trade deal based on current World Trade Organisation arrangements with a
better free trade deal on top.

The basic deal is guaranteed
whatever happens, as the UK and EU are both World Trade Organisation
members in their own right and must follow its rules or be hauled into
an international court.

This worst case scenario would mean
tariffs on some goods. But I think we can do better than that. There are
already indications that German car manufacturers would ensure their
government does not impose tariffs on UK cars – why penalise BMW-owned
Minis and Rolls Royces? There would be such demand from all sides for a
better deal"

"In the middle of the summer Moses the raven suddenly reappeared on the
farm, after an absence of several years. He was quite unchanged, still
did no work, and talked in the same strain as ever about Sugarcandy
Mountain. He would perch on a stump, flap his black wings, and talk by
the hour to anyone who would listen. "Up there, comrades," he would say
solemnly, pointing to the sky with his large beak– "up there, just on
the other side of that dark cloud that you can see– there it lies,
Sugarcandy Mountain, that happy country where we poor animals shall rest
for ever from our labours!" He even claimed to have been there on one
of his higher flights, and to have seen the everlasting fields of clover
and the linseed cake and lump sugar growing on the hedges. Many of the
animals believed him. Their lives now, they reasoned, were hungry and
laborious; was it not right and just that a better world should exist
somewhere else? A thing that was difficult to determine was the attitude
of the pigs towards Moses. They all declared contemptuously that his
stories about Sugarcandy Mountain were lies, and yet they allowed him to
remain on the farm, not working, with an allowance of a gill of beer a
day."

So you see it's quite useful having a clever talker persuading people that Paradise is just around the corner if they continue "working harder for a better Britain!" supporting their betters on such matters...